Get Adobe Flash player

BZA MEETING MINUTES THURSDAY APRIL 21, 2011

The White County Area Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Second Floor, County Building, Monticello, Indiana.

Members attending were:  Gerald Cartmell, Carl Hites, David Hall, Richard Holmes, Dave Rosenbarger.  Absent:  None.  Also attending were Attorney Ben Diener, Director Joseph Rogers and Secretary Gayle Rogers.

Visitors attending were:  Robert Novak, Rita Mankus, Catherine & Eric Shields, Mark & Nancy Burns, Joe Mowrer

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gerald Cartmell.  Dave Hall motioned to accept the minutes of March 17, 2011 as written.  Dave Rosenbarger seconded.  The motion passed unanimously.   

#2852  City of Monticello

A tract of land located in the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of section 33, township 27 north, range 3 west, Union Township, City of Monticello, White County, Indiana containing 2.091 acres, known as 221 E. St. Mary’s Avenue

Violation:  None

Request:  Special Exception Use to improve and expand the city’s lift station

Director Rogers showed photos of the property and described the request.  Joe Mowrer was in attendance to represent the request.  Mark and Nancy Burns (nearest neighboring property) expressed a concern regarding odor.  Mr. Mowrer stated the improvement and expansion is due to IDEM requirements.  If the neighbors have any concerns, he will be happy to provide them with the phone number for IDEM.  IDEM will investigate all complaints and require the City to remedy the situation if they have not yet taken steps to do so.  The Burns’ were content with this solution.  Dave Hall motioned and Dave Rosenbarger seconded to vote on the request.  Result:  5 votes cast; 5 grant; 0 deny 

Findings of Fact

1    Appendix A of the Zoning Ordinance does authorize the special exception for this use in this zoning district.   5-0

2    The requirements and development standards for the requested use as prescribed by the Zoning Ordinance will be met.   5-0

3    Granting the special exception will not subvert the general purposes served by the Ordinance.   5-0 

4    Granting the special exception will not permanently injure other property or uses in the same district because of:

a.    Traffic generation.   5-0

b.    Noise production.   5-0; Private range “personal” dawn to dusk

c.    Becoming hazardous or disturbing to neighboring uses.   5-0 control the smell

d.    Destruction, loss, or damage of a natural, scenic, or historic feature of major importance.   5-0

e.    Becoming detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.   5-0

****

#2853  Eric W. & Catherine M. Shields

That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 5, Township 27 North, Range 3 West in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana containing 3.745 acres, more or less; known as 4460 E 500 N.

Violation:  No

Request:  A 27.5’ front setback to build a pole barn.  Required setback is 60’

Director Rogers explained that the Shields’ wish to construct a pole barn abutting their

current driveway.  Luis Ditch runs through their property and they must stay a minimum

of 75’ from the top of the bank of each side of the ditch.  Eric Shields stepped forward to

represent the request.  He stated that he wished to build it where proposed to have

adequate maneuverability to pull his camper and boat in and out.  Dave Hall stated he

saw no practical difficulty to building in compliance since the parcel is nearly 4 acres. 

Director Rogers asked why the structure could not be built over the gully as long as

drainage was provided under the structure or diverted around it.  Other board members

inquired as to building in different locations to be in compliance.  Mr. Shields could not

provide answers to these questions.  Shaker Hites moved and Dave Hall seconded to vote

on the request.  Result:  5 votes cast; 1 grant; 4 deny

Findings of Fact

1.    The variance requested does not essentially alter the character of the surrounding area.   4-1

2.    The granting of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community.   5-0 

3.    The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance request will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.   2-2-1 abstain; Too close to road; The shed could be moved to west side of house

4.    The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and district but which is denied to the property in question.   4-1

5.    The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property, provided that the situation is not self-imposed or that the need for the development standard variance is not based on a perceived reduction of, or restriction on, economic gain.  3-2; Has room to move it without a variance

6.    The granting of a variance would be a minimal departure from the strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance.  In other words, the variance will be the minimum necessary to permit a reasonable use of the land and building.   2-3; Has room; Building has room on lot to move back

****

#2854  Robert T. Novak & Rita A. Mankus

A tract of land fifty (50) feet wide and One hundred nine (109) feet deep out of the Northwest Corner of Lot Number 183 in Jon Barr’s Addition to the Town of Monticello, White County, Indiana.  Also a strip of land off of the South side of Jefferson Street Twenty (20) feet wide and running one hundred nine (109) feet East from the East line of Bluff Street; known as 301 S. Bluff St

Violation:  None

Request:  A 10.15’ Jefferson St. front setback & an 18’ Bluff St. front setback to build a home.  Required setback is 30’.

Director Rogers explained the Board received a new survey showing some clarification Mr. Rogers requested, such as the visual clearance area on the corner as mandated by the Ordinance and whether any structures, porches, steps, etc. would be closer to the setback line than the foundation shown.  In reviewing this information, it was discovered the eave was to be a 24” eave.  Ordinance provides that the setback be measured to the foundation if the eave is 16” or less; if the eave exceeds 16”, the setback must be measured to the eave.  This puts the setbacks 2’ closer to the property lines.  Shaker Hites motioned and Dave Rosenbarger seconded to modify the application to accept the 24” eave.  The motioned passed with a 5-0 vote.  Mr. Rogers stated that the neighbor adjoining the south property line came to the Area Plan Office to ask questions regarding the variance.  Mr. Dold had no problem with the request, and in fact, said he was in favor of it as it would greatly enhance the neighborhood.  Mr. Novak answer

ed pertaining to the setbacks.  Shaker Hites stated that the structure could be built in compliance if it was scaled down to fit the buildable area. 

Bluff Street 16’ Front Setback  Dave Rosenbarger moved to vote.  Shaker Hites seconded.  Result:  5 votes cast; 4 grant; 1 deny

Findings of Fact

1.    The variance requested does not essentially alter the character of the surrounding area.   5-0

2.    The granting of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community.   5-0 

3.    The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance request will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.   5-0

4.    The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and district but which is denied to the property in question.   2-3

5.    The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property, provided that the situation is not self-imposed or that the need for the development standard variance is not based on a perceived reduction of, or restriction on, economic gain.  4-1; No steps

6.    The granting of a variance would be a minimal departure from the strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance.  In other words, the variance will be the minimum necessary to permit a reasonable use of the land and building.   3-2

Jefferson Street 8.15’ Front Setback  Dave Rosenbarger moved to vote.  Shaker Hites seconded.  Result:  5 votes cast; 3 grant; 2 deny

Findings of Fact

1.    The variance requested does not essentially alter the character of the surrounding area.   5-0

2.    The granting of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community.   5-0 

3.    The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance request will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.   5-0

4.    The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and district but which is denied to the property in question.   2-3

5.    The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property, provided that the situation is not self-imposed or that the need for the development standard variance is not based on a perceived reduction of, or restriction on, economic gain.  4-1

6.    The granting of a variance would be a minimal departure from the strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance.  In other words, the variance will be the minimum necessary to permit a reasonable use of the land and building.   3-2

8’ South Side Setback  Shaker Hites moved to vote.  Dave Rosenbarger seconded.  Result:  5 votes cast; 3 grant; 2 deny

Findings of Fact

1.    The variance requested does not essentially alter the character of the surrounding area.   5-0

2.    The granting of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community.   5-0 

3.    The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance request will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.   5-0

4.    The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and district but which is denied to the property in question.   1-4

5.    The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property, provided that the situation is not self-imposed or that the need for the development standard variance is not based on a perceived reduction of, or restriction on, economic gain.  3-2

6.    The granting of a variance would be a minimal departure from the strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance.  In other words, the variance will be the minimum necessary to permit a reasonable use of the land and building.   3-2

****

As there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:25 pm.

****
Respectfully submitted,

________________________________________
Gayle E. Rogers, Secretary
Area Board of Zoning Appeals

________________________________________
Joseph W. Rogers, Director
White County Area Plan Commission

Document Prepared By: Gayle E. Rogers, WCAP  “I AFFIRM, UNDER THE PENALTIES FOR PERJURY, THAT I HAVE TAKEN REASONABLE CARE TO REDACT EACH SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER IN THIS DOCUMENT, UNLESS REQUIRED BY LAW.”____________________________